Football Outsiders projects Michigan to finish 7-5 in 2013

Football Outsiders did a preliminary projection and simulation of the 2013 Big Ten Standings today. They projected Michigan to most likely finish 7-5 and 4th in the Legends Division with a potential win range between 5-7 and 9-3. I was pretty surprised by this as usually Football Outsiders models are some of the better ones in football. Article is ESPN Insider ($):

This projection model isn't too kind to the Wolverines, a program with an elite historical tradition but one that is still seeking its identity in the Brady Hoke era. The offense was prolific in spots under quarterback Devin Gardner after he took the reins midseason, but there is youth along the offensive line that will probably keep Michigan from being a contender. If the Wolverines can help themselves on defense and special teams, it can ease the burden. But Michigan started twice as many drives from inside its own 20-yard line (24 percent) as its opponents (12 percent) and lost the field position battle eight times, including in four of its five losses.

The results of a single-elimination tourney should be neither an indignation or commendation of the system.

Kenpom had Florida ranked 1st heading into the tourney and Georgetown around 12th or so. The system ranks FLA as being better, and thus less susceptible to an upset. Guess what, they werent upset and GTown was.

You can argue that the system works because it predicted a 3seed to out-achieve a 2seed or you can argue it failed because its 2nd best team in the final rankings lost to its 5th best team. Neither argument should hold much water.

Florida did struggle with quality competition all year and beat up on bad teams. Not every team has an identical statistical profile and team profile. I mean this year, at times, pretty much anybody could score on Michigan's defense. Penn State shredded them. You could argue their defense was opponent-neutral (as in anybody could score on it). Thats an individual team quirk. So is Florida's struggle with good teams. That doesn't mean a guy with a cbb rating system should change his formula to account for every outlier.

Kenpom struggling to predict Florida shows the system isn't perfect, but no system is. What it gives is a good baseline projection, which fans/gamblers/prognosticators can then use that baseline and adjust based on matchups/team statistical quirks etc.

KenPom isn't really a "power ranking" so much as a predictive algorithm. It's designed to give an idea of the outcome of a given game between two teams on a neutral court. So, it did kinda predict that Florida would win it all.

You can then ALWAYS say you were right. If they win, you were right in saying they were the favorites. If they don't win, you can say that you said the vast percentages you predicted said they wouldn't. How are you ever wrong then?

KenYou have no clue how probabilities work, as has been evident by every time you rag on KenPom. There is no "right" or "wrong" probability based on one single event, just seeing if a multitude of outcomes eventually approach the expected percentage. For example, if I say the probability of rolling a 1-5 on a 6-sided die is 83.3%, I'm not "wrong" if the result of the next roll is a 6. However, if I roll the die 100 times, I would expect the result to be 1-5 close to 83 times, and even larger sample sizes getting closer to 83.3% as variance lowers. As this applies to KenPom, when he says Florida is 21% likely to win the tournament, it doesn't mean he was wrong if they don't win, it just means this roll came up with less probable result. Unfortunately, we can't run the tournament 100 times to see if Florida wins approximately 21 times, but KenPom does check his season game results to make sure predictions at each percentage are right the appropriate amount of the time (I can't find the blog post where he said that, but it's on his site somewhere).

KenPom did not predict anything. He just gave the win probabilities of every team, with Florida having the highest probability but being much less probable than all the other teams combined. If you were dumb enough to assume highest win probability is the same as a prediction, that's a problem with you, not KenPom.

Then it's the worst form of mental masturbation, telling us nothing. Telling me that rolling a die will come up a certain way is just math, not any stupendous insight you like to give him credit for. But at least dice are a simple quantifiable thing. Unlike a basketball team that actually has variables nearly impossible to quantify. (In the elite 8 Florida has a...wait for it....12.5% chance to win it all, no variables. Wow, what insight).

People act like he's "predicting" because people like you always give him credit for being "right" when shear happenstance happens to go his way. And if he's not predicting winners and losers, why do we always get a "line" from him? It's amazing that I can get just as accurate information from a Vegas betting line as I can from Kenpom.

But if he's not actually predicting anything but just claiming the probability of something happening without being able to test and verify (something that only happens once) then it's a pointless venture. Saying Florida would win 20% of the time has no basis in anything, because it's all on numbers he chooses to highlight, and serves no purpose because it can't actually tell you anything. Just because there are people dumb enough to believe because he crunched some numbers it has any more validity than someone just doing an eye test poll doesn't mean it really tells us anything more than that. Because, as you said, it has no predictive value, and is worthless to assisting of enhancing viewing college basketball.

I never said it has no predictive value, I said it wasn't a prediction. There is a difference which you keep ignoring. Saying a team is 60% likely to win *does* has predictive value and can be useful stat to use while making predictions. Especially useful for situations like determining which tourney upsets picks are more or less likely than their seeding would indicate, or seeing if Vegas has odds on a game particularly out of line with a team's likelihood of winning. But while going to Vegas and only betting in situations where the book is giving even odds but KenPom gives 60% win probability would be a winning strategy in the long run, you're going to lose a few bets along the way.

nothing like considering the Strength of Schedule last year to really determine our likelihood of winning games this year...let alone the fact that most teams don't start with the ball inside their opponents side of the field! i wonder what the median % is on teams starting with the ball in their opponents territory? i bet it is pretty low

Seems fair. The interior o-line was a total mess and there's no reason they shouldn't take a wait and see approach. The defense is good but lacks playmakers now that there's no Ryan. I think Michigan will be better than this, but I can see the reason for skepticism.

the games I see as competitive, based on the relatively recent past are probably MSU away, Ohio, Notre Dame, maybe Nebraska, maybe Penn State, maybe Northwestern, and maybe Iowa. Of those, I think we improve enough/get the home benefit enough to beat Notre Dame, Nebraska, Penn State, Northwestern, and Iowa (Penn State will be starting to get hit by sanctions, Iowa has fallen off, Nebraska is winnable if we actually have a QB, etc.) We obviously have the history of beating Notre Dame at home, and last year we were plagued by QB problems there as well. Ohio is Ohio, MSU is MSU. I just don't see that low of a win-total, especially based on incoming talent.

I definitely do not agree with this. I think we are deeper and more talented at every position this year and will be much, much better than a year ago. Consider that last year we lost to 4 top 10 teams and were close in all but one of those games. We will also face a much easier schedule this year. I'm predicting 10+ wins and a high chance of a B1G championship.

This prediction is based off of past performance and no statistical model can really account for freshmen. I think most of our expectations for next year are based off what we expect Michigan will get from the last 2 recruiting classes, most of whom have not played significantly yet.

This model predicts 9-3 for PSU next year, and I think that is awfully optimistic considering they have little to replace what they are losing.

But haven't all the reports about Gardner this offseason been about him doing exactly what Borges wants (throwing it all over the place)? On the other side of the field, the defense had an identity by the second half of WMU 2011, and off the field it seems like Hoke has established as much of an identity as possible.

It just seems like "seeking an identity" is usually code for wandering in the wilderness or some other negative phrase. I think Hoke is pretty well established going into his third season.

I was thinking 8-4. Although looking at what the offense did last year to help predict this season is basically useless. The offense will look very different without Denard and Devin did not play QB for most of the season. A full offseason with Devin working at QB will help him be more consistent. If the O-line is better and some of the other wide receivers step up this offense could be amazing. But 8-4 or 7-5 would not totally surprise me.

I mean, none right now. Even if a true freshman surfaces, he'll be a significant, significant downgrade from Bell. And no Sims. And the D will still be very good, but they lose Adams and Gholston (and probably won't replace those with better or equivalent players).

Yeah but they didn't win a B10 home game and went 6-6 last year. Slightly upgrading at 1 or 2 positions doesn't make up for losing your only 2 offensive weapons. They have a linebacker at running back right now. I don't see anything that makes me think they will be leaps and bounds better. They lost to Iowa last year.

Depth is solid at DB, LB, and DT this year. A little weak at DE (Calhoun and Rush are the only two with much playing experience).

On offense, OL depth is great if they can stay healthy. If 2 players go down with season ending injuries like the past two years, that depth won't be as great obviously. WR has a lot of depth with young players. RB is a big question mark. Riley Bullough looked solid but ultimately it will be a freshman who will start in my opinion. TE is an even bigger question mark. Simply put, our TEs will suck this year.

I'd say your deep at LB and safety. Dennard is a very good corner, but I didn't see anyone opposite him worth noting (now that Adams is gone). Isn't Drone also a back-up DE?

DT is deep if you mean a lot of guys who are average or below. And I'd say the same about OL, but having Fonoti back will help.

Bullough at RB? Has your fanbase really bought into this? I'm sure he's tough. But he's slow, can't cut, can't make his own yards, and is a huge target. He even fumbled in your spring game. His emergence is a flashing neon sign above the cratering hole at RB. A true freshman has to step up... but won't be nearly as good as Bell.

You mean All-B1G cornerback Johnny Adams, as voted by the coaches? I realize he was burned in several high profile moments, but he was also a tough-as-nails run defender and held coverage on numerous plays where the QB decided not to throw. He was good, even if the Sparty fanbase complained ad nauseum about him. The B1G coaches, who watch more film than any of us, would seem to be a good judge of that.

Gholston was laughably touted as an All-American in the media, and this blog correctly knocked that down (and then went well beyond that). But he was better than average, and disruptive often enough. Until someone else shows something besides nothing, I'll assume a lesser player.

Yeah, who doesn't? If they can kick two field goals a game they'll win the national title with that defense. So what if every game is close , even if it's against Indiana or EMU. That team is for real. Who cares about catching passes or having a running back. Maxwell is a sure fire first team QB.

To me MSU looks like a team that will have a very good defense and a very bad offense. Teams like that tend to play close, low-scoring games against everybody, and it would take a lot of luck for almost all of those games to break the right way.

If you are being honest, you have to predict this as a loss. Not saying that we can't win, but from a purely objective standpoint, that team is loaded. Msu is a probable win, but i could also see listing this as a toss-up. Otherwise I agree with your predictions.

loaded? With that OL? Have you read the reports about that super hyped DL in the spring game? and they lost Hankins and Simon? I think Michigan is better on both lines and at worst the game is a toss up.

I feel like this year sets up for a weird year for statistical models. Like the QB switch, and offensive philosophy switch probably messes up a bunch of the predictive measures these models normally use. And then we lose starters like Demens, but then again, do we really lose a starter? Because Morgan, another starter slides over, and Ross was playing starting level minutes by the end of the year last year. And then we lose Floyd at CB, but gain Countess back, who is an upgrade and going into the 2012 season everyone was calling him our best defender. We are a young team for sure, but 7-5 seems crazy pessimistic to me. 2012 was one of those years where statisical models don't really grasp what went on with the team, and what will going forward.

but with the coaching staff, it's evident that this defense is about scheme and not personnel. How many of these guys would've been projected to contribute to a top 20 defense for 2 consecutive years? The scheme wins. Also, you have to take into account guys like Frank Clark, Countess being a HUGE upgrade over Floyd, and the possibility of having an actual pass rush this season

This. Except that, while I loved Kovacs like everyone else, his lack of speed did hurt in pass defense. I'm not at all sure that our safety play will be worse. Run support and blitzing could hardly be better than Kovacs. But pass defense definitely could be. Add Countess back in, plug in Jake by mid-season (fingers crossed), Ross is very likely to be a stud linebacker, and then replace average players (Campbell and Roh), then give everyone more experience -- and our defense will be better. Good luck running against us next year, is my prediction.

If we keep doing this then is safe to say that we'll never be good again, every team loses seniors every year, and most of them are key players (otherwise they'd have left the team by then) next year we'll be debating about who is going to replace Lewan, Schofield, Qwash, etc... Just keep the faith, we're developing pretty good players and we'll lose great players year in and year out.

But, most teams that win consistently year in and year out are not starting Fr and Sophs out of neccessity. They do it when the talent warrants, but even then they have quality juniors and seniors as back-ups. Michigan just doesn't yet have the depth of experience that it needs.

Yeah, most of the times I'll agree with that, but although we have young players in the two-deep, they're no newcomers, we lose JMFR and he's replaced by a senior, Morgan is a true junior with his share of games under his belt, and although Ross is only a true sophomore, he beat a RS senior last year for playing time in Hawtorne and is ahead a RS senior this year in Mike Jones, he's young, but talented, Campbell and Roh were seniors, but they were underwhelming, I don't think the bar is set too high for whoever ends up filling this spots.

On offense we have 2 true sophomore tight ends, but they have a full year of playing experience under their belt and if anything they should be better than last year.

On the OL we have a couple experienced tackles whom will play in the NFL most likely (talking about Schofield) we have a RS Junior center between them and a couple young guards, we can't count out Bryant, who has 3 years in this team, and if he's beaten for the position as the optimist I am, I'd like to think that that's due to the talent of his competition and not because he's a bad player. To add to that even though we had 3 veteran seniors starting at the interior offensive line, they were average, so again the bar is not that high in that regard.

We have a RS junior at the helm, a couple of reliable senior wide receivers and some talented kids behind them, the player we're going to find harder to replace IMO is Jordan Kovacs, because although we have some very promising players in the team, they're young (Wilson and Thomas) and the experienced guys in the team (Furman and Robinson) haven't shown yet that they can play there and be effective.

Yeah, I really don't see a 5-7 season as being within the range of potential outcomes. This is a really, really pessimistic prediction that is dependent on believing that there will be no O-line improvement, Gardner will not be as good as his numbers say, and the defense without Jake Ryan will be hamstrung. I just don't see that as likely at all. Gardner is a great fit for what Borges wants to do, we've got the best LT in America, and Mattison continues to head up the defense. We'll see, but a 7-5 season really seems like the worst-case scenario, if a lot of things go wrong, not a most-likely outcome.

I see no sure losses on this schedule. PSU should be falling apart. Iowa won't have a RB by the end of November. NW is just a team that we should be, but it's on the road so who knows. That's 7-8 wins right there. That means that they are predicting us to lose every tossup game this year with 3 of them being at home. I just don't see how we lose all of those games.

Honestly, I think it's more likely that we go 12-0 than 7-5 (not that I think 12-0 is terribly likely either). We'd just have to have a lot of things go very wrong for us to lose 5 games and I just don't see it happening.

Northwestern had us beat last year but for a minor miracle, so there's that. I also think most impartial observers would have a couple of your tossups as at least "lean losses." I can see 5 losses out of this group, but I can't see 7 loses as predicted by the model.

We have a lot more questions than some of the commenters here seem to appreciate, but we should have more pure talent to guarantee a winning record. I'd say we'll see a range of 7-5 to 10-2 with 8-4 and 9-3 being the equally most likely outcomes.

I'd move Northwestern to "tossup" but other than that minor quibble, I agree with your assessment. I'm usually pretty pessimistic and I am currently predicting a 9-3 season as being the most likely for UM with a decent shot at a 10-2 regular season. Whatever model they are using for this prediction seems...faulty.

NOTE: All bets are off if Gardner gets injured and misses significant time because UM would be proper f*cked if that happens.

Come on now. As long as #12 is healthy, we'll be just fine. Most of the team is in their second and third year in this system. The talent and depth are improved. Call me me Mr. Optimistic , but I'm expecting a huge year.

We have none at QB, and about the same on the OL (in that its either freshman replacements, or upper classmen replacements who couldn't beat out the freshmen). I do think the ceiling is higher than 9-3 if we keep the key players healthy, but if you have any sort of probabilistic model, you have to account for the possibility that Gardner, Lewan, or Schofield get hurt, at which point things can get ugly in a hurry.

I was pretty surprised by this as usually Football Outsiders models are some of the better ones in football.

Even on the most scientific blog in the Big 10 (TM?), the homerism such that the first reaction is to question the model, not figure out why it might be right. joeyb broke it down well -- 7 losses is basically us losing every game there's a decent chance for us to lose. But only a 1% chance of winning the Big 10? That's pessimistic, even for me.

EDIT add: Curious if they define Devin as a returning starter at QB or not. If not, that may explain some of the pessimism; these models usually give decent boosts for having a returning starter at QB.

Did anyone else notice that he gives PSU a 7% chance to win the big ten and Michigan a 1% chance? That basically throws any credit this guy had out the window. The 1 team that's ineligable to even comepte for a big ten title he gives a 7% chance to win it.

But they can't win the big ten. They have a 0% shot at winning the big ten. That's different than winning the division because the team below them would still go to the title game and compete to win the big ten.

But I bet their model doesnt exclude them because of that. And, since they can come in first place in the division, they get a technical percent for winning the whole league. IIRC, they had percentages for both OSU and PSU last year too. So on those few times their models put PSU in first place in the division, rather than back track like would happen in reality, they just keep going forward in their computer world. There are many reason to pick apart their analysis, I just dont think this is one of them

It's not that hard to get to 7-5. Team is basically the same, but minus half a season of Denard and Jake. That said, I'd be surprised if the rest of the B1G has enough talent to actually capitalize on our weakness. We'll be at a talent deficit against ND and OSU. That's about it no? 8-4 sounds right to me.

I see six challenging games on that schedule. Do you really think we will go 1-5 vs ND, @MSU, @Iowa, @NW, Neb, OSU? I say we will win all the home games and go 2-1 on the road. for a overall record of 11-1 division champs.

Our OL will be better with Miller at center and Kalis in at guard, our WR group will be better with Darboh, Dilleo and Gallon, with some Cheson mixed in, the Funch is a year older, Devin is a better QB than Denard, and Green will be better odds are than anything we had running last year.

On defense, yeah, we lost Ryan, but we are getting Countess back. And Ryan may come back in October.

Here's someone (their Twitter handle is @HuskerMath) that did this slightly differently but arrived at some similar results to the ESPN article (HERE). In this model, they also had Michigan at 7-5, but this one also displays some of the probability tables used and explains the method in at least some detail. Like the ESPN one, it is based on past performance.

Others have said it, but I also agree that 7-5 with our schedule seems like the worst case, one where perhaps there are numerous injuries. Hoke and company have built a well-rounded, deep team (at several positions where depth was needed to boot) and I think this year, they will be able to do some of the things they've wanted to do stylewise since they arrived and move closer to what the long-term plan was anyway.

Like the alternate model I linked here, it seems like anything which is based on past results that pulls from scoring offense and scoring defense might spawn interesting predictions for Michigan depending on how many years of data they used. Even if the defensive production stays at a similar level to last year between not having Ryan right away and other changeouts, I still see 7-5 as not terribly likely (many unfortunate things would need to happen, I think).

Both the Football Study Hall and Football Outsider's models use past samples of 5 years. Both have 3 of those 5 years being the Rich Rod years. I think UM may be one of those 'exception' teams where the sample data doesn't do nearly as good of a job predicting performance as other team's.

For those wondering, in addition to the usual returning starters, what positions, etc that most of these models use, Football Outsiders also uses a 5 year program 'rating' using all the stats from the past 5 years to predict upcoming success. So bascially, right now that includes the seasons 2008-2012, aka the lowest of the low for the UM program. If you look at their tables, we currently have a program efficiency rating of 29, which is one ahead of Iowa and 5 behind MSU. The lowest point we had was after the 2010 season, when we were 50 in the nation. What does this mean? Not entirely sure, but eyeball tests suggest we are out performing our program efficency rating.

Feel free to be bearish about Michigan's program efficiency. The returns on the 2010 coaching change investment appear to be respectable thus far for the entire program, holistically. Michigan does not yet possess enough continuity with the current coaches for a homerish 12-0 but I see 10 wins as a reasonable expectation for the upcoming season if CG steps up in place of JR and DG flies high. Say the homefield seal breaks and we lose to ND and Ohio. We also play at a decimated Michigan State; and face Nebraska at home. I saved my ticket from the 2011 game: Section 21, Row 11, Seat 21.

In short: I believe Michigan is most likely to lose to ND and/or Ohio next year but I see all games on the schedule as essentially winnable based on the incomplete information available to fans.

Well then that's a fairly easy prediction to make... add 3+5+7+11+8 as the number of wins we've had the last five years =34, divide them into 5 seasons and we have!.... 6.8 if we round that up it'll be 7 and I'm being optimistic, who wants to hire me to be an analist?

No Way we lose 5 games this year. I predict an undefeated season. Our defense is going to be so much better and our offense will be at least as good. I think having the brawlers up front in the middle of the line are going to be at least as good as last year, even with their youth. They are definitely going to be able to run the ball more and passing is improved exponentially with Devin and some big receivers. 7-5? I really don't think so.

CMU W

ND W (could have easily won this last year without an inexplicable 6 turnovers)

The only three games I would even question on this schedule are Penn State, Nebraska, Northwestern, and ohio. I feel very confident that the rest will be handled. These four will in a sense be toss-ups. I see us beating state, northwestern, Nebraska (home game). We should take care of psu, even on the road. I believe ohio will g into the game undefeated and falter in a close one a he big house. I honestly see 1-2 loses at worst. I think at times our offense will be stagnant and the d may give up some big plays. Special teams may be better than we think. Yes we our concerned about the punter situation, but really he is the only special teamer we potentially have to replace. Kick game should be solid. Overall a division championship for Michigan. Anything less would be a disappointment.

It has a five-year look-back period to determine program strength, so it includes all three years of the RR era, which makes us look like a mediocre program that just had a lucky season in 2011 rather than a historically good program that had a 3-year deviation.

One of its primary variables is whether we have a returning starter at QB. We don't, but Gardner is a top recruit who showed that he's a very good QB in his limited time last year.

Another variable is returning starters. What the model doesn't realize is that nearly all the guys we lost (Omameh, Barnum, Campbell, Vincent Smith, Roundtree, Floyd, Campbell, Roh) were average at best - Denard and Kovacs were the only two stars we lost. And almost all those guys are being replaced by highly-regarded recruits, some of whom (Gardner) fit the system better than they guy they're replacing.

So, in other words, don't look at a single ridiculous prediction (I don't think any college football analyst is predicting us to be as bad as 7-5) and say the model sucks. This model actually has a pretty good track record at predicting how strong most teams will be. But if you look at why the model says we're not supposed to do well, you'll see reasons why our particular situation doesn't fit the model well.

if we went 7-5 this year. While the interior OL is rebuilt, what we had last year wasn't so great and Kalis and Braden come with high praise. Mattison has shown what he can do with spare parts on defense, and he has a lot more to work with this year. I think Devin is going to be terrific. One of the RBs will be good enough. Anything less than 9-3 would surprise me.

Last year our 4 losses were away games, and even with our OLine struggles and bad turnovers we could've, or even should've, won 3 of them. This year with those opponents at home and what I see as improvements in our OLine and passing game we should be able to edge those opponents out.

I don't think this prediction reflects how good Devin Gardner is going to be. The secondary is deep, as is the offensive line. The offensive line has young depth, but that young depth is big, talented and highly rated. Also, never, never, never discount the effect an impact RB can have on a football team. Maurice Clarrett's impact on the 03 Ohio team can't be underrated. Derrick Green will make an impact, and will make this team far more consistent.

The one thing really against us for the division crown is schedule. MSU's cross divison games are Purdue, Illinois, and Indiana. Nebraska's are Illinois, Purdue and PSU. We get PSU, OSU and Ind. So we play probably 3 of the 4 toughest legends division teams, one of which is by far the best. MSU plays one, the worst of the top 4 (Ind), and Neb plays 3 and 4 (PSU and Ind). Basically, our divisional games are CRAZY important this year. Need to beat both MSU and Neb to keep a cushion. At least NW has to play OSU and UW, so that gives a little leeway in the race against them.

I will go with my default pick of 9-3 with the bowl being a toss-up. I see no reason to think otherwise in either direction. Michigan is a baseline 9-3 school, and has been since Bo retired. Sometimes, they do better, sometimes, they do worse. But 9-3 seems to be the starting point more often than not.

As that they (a) often produce crazy results for individual data points despite being pretty good overall, (b) often lack any sort of "sanity check," and (c) suffer from the fact that you can only include so many variables before you risk overfitting the curve.

In other words, models have blind spots, and trying to make sure every data point is where you THINK it should be is a recipe for a terrible result. I happen to think Michigan will outperform this result comfortably, but you can't really be mad.

I forget which basketball model had Michigan at like #42 entering this year, and in the discussion portion they were all, "yeah, Michigan is almost certainly too low, but they're really young so that happens."

The offense has to be dragging down the numbers. After Denard got hurt, Michigan produced approximately zero yards on the ground last season, the whole interior line graduated, most of us believe our top two running backs in November haven't registered for classes yet, and Gallon is our only proven receiver. There's a lot not to like there.

Models can't realistically account for the less tangible reasons why most pundits and fans see Michigan as one of the two best teams in the conference this season. Modeling is really hard to do in a sport like college football due to high roster turnover and small sample size (among other things), so I tend to be skeptical of what modeling is done.

A 7-5 prediction doesn't even bother me as much as suggesting 9-3 as a best case scenario. Best case. Even a reasonable ohio fan (all three of them) would admit our best case is better than that. Our best case the last two years was better than that, and this team is better than they were.

4 years is enough time for any coach to make a mark, either positive or negative. I'd rather have a o line coach who can coach up players than someone who recruits 4-5 stars only to have them fail miserably. The jury is still out on Funk but, after watching our O line the last few years his coaching ability is suspect at best

You're kidding right? O linemen take 3 years to mature and every starter last year was an RR recruit chosen for a spread offense. They were smaller and quicker than power o linemen and power is what Borges likes to run. Four years is never enough time for an o line coach in this situation.

7-5 I somewhat understand, but only in a situation where multiple skill position players go down with season ending injuries. I understand not being conference favorites, but 5-7 is completely ludicrous. Gardner will be exponentially better with a far better command of the offense, the defensive line should be much better, the offensive line interior might not get much better at first, but it won't get worse than it was last year. Not to mention we have arguably the best O-lineman in America protecting Devin's blindside. And then there's Funchess......

Yeah, our running back situation is a little hazy, but with Fitz and Green, I think it will sort itself out. We're in better shape now than we were this time last year with our wideouts. Gallon is our go-to man, and Darboh will step up this Fall.

To suggest a 5-7 record when we went 8-4 last year with a much tougher schedule and with a team that, in my opinion, won't be as good as this year's, is idiotic. There are no sure-fire losses on our schedule, and I think we're going into this season with much fewer question marks this year as opposed to last.

I wouldn't be shocked if this prediction was made for page views and fan outbursts like what we're all doing right now.

This is why computers will never take over the world: they have no common sense. Using statistical models from the past five years flies in the face of the obvious. Mattison has produced the #6 and #19 scoring defenses in the country the past two years, and there is absolutely no way we are any worse than we were in 2012...I mean, didn't 'Bama score half of those points against us? There are only two positions on defense where you could argue we might be worse: SS and SLB...Everywhere else, we are better.

And DG was the highest-rated passer in the conference last season. He tore apart the South Carolina defense. On offense, we are more talented at EVERY position than we were last year. Yes, we're younger, but every replacement is more talented.

Our youth might cost us a game or two, but we're far more talented than last year's 8-4 team, and have an easier schedule.

7-5 is a worst-case scenario that would have to involve an injury to DG. With Mattison's defense and the talent we have on offense, Shane Morris could guide this team to seven wins. Heck, Swieca or Cleary might be able to get seven wins with this team.

FBO is a great site with great ideas, but sometimes stats just don't line-up with reality.

In a positive way, this season could be huge transition years for both the offense and the defense. Offensively , of course, Al Borges will finally begin to implement his West Coast offense that was so fun to watch at San Diego State.
The sea change on defense will be Mattison believing this is the season he can generate a pass rush with four. If this is true the defense is going to be better than last season. I think this suggests Mattison believes he has the experience in the system, and the personnel to run the defense the way he wants to run it. Buckle up!

This is a team that will feature a very young OL, but if they stay healthy they should be pretty damn good by mid-season. The D will be solid even with loss of Jake. Mattison loves to play a lot of people and this has added quickly to better than average depth. I think Devin will surprise a lot of people this season and if we get any TB help, we could be dangerous. It's a team that, imo, could win 10 as easily as 7. Certainly breaks of the nature of the 2011 campaign would help our cause greatly.

This is from ESPN and another ESPN projection from the same day put us second to Ohio with the best chance to win the Big Ten at 5-1 odds. This same article also projected Ohio at. 10-2 which is odd based on their schedule. Very contradictory from one site.

I tried to nitpick your probabilities--that's actually likely really accurate. Maybe 90% @ UConn too high? Other than that, I think you are right. Really hard to adjust that to get down to an EW total under 7. 5-7 range doesn't make much sense.

I'm going to guess, if pressed, Mr. Fremeau would not put his money on his model and offer 50-1 odds out of his own pocket that Michigan wins the Big 10 title this year. I'm calling B.S. on this model's predictions, unless there's a variable in the model attempting to maximize page views. In that case, Football Outsiders, congrats on a successful troll.

I would think we have better than a 1% chance of running the table in the regular season, to say nothing of winning the Big 10. I'd go so far as to say if we're good enough to beat Notre Dame that we probably have at least a 25% chance of winning out in the RS, assuming Gardner stays upright.